I think it's a great idea. Intel keeps putting out chipsets with video on-board, and this has to hurt nVidia's core business. If they make inroads into other areas where Intel is now dominant, and can do it without going broke, then that puts them in a nicer position.
And I don't put anything out there that I wouldn't be ashamed of my mom seeing.
Friend your mom like I did and your problem is solved!:)
I do use Facebook, but mostly as a big contact list. It's great when we travel near where some infrequently-contacted cousin lives and I can just lift their contact info from Facebook rather than calling around trying to update my long-out-of-date address book. It's also nice to see what someone's kids look like and such without having to sift through my emails looking for that link to Picasa/Kodak/etc.
Anyway, if I were doing such a thing that I needed privacy, I'd probably use someone else's connection - and not the same connection every time. I'd pay for services with pre-paid credit cards bought with cash while wearing a hoodie and sunglasses. One of the services I would first purchase would be an out-of-country VPN, and I'd frequently change accounts. I'd consider having a special PC dedicated just to the activity that needed so much privacy, and while on that PC I'd assume a completely different identity. While doing said activity, make sure the phone in your pocket is off! And don't use EasyPass. If I had the financial means, I'd probably also rotate phones/computers.
That would at least set up some roadblocks, but I don't do any of that - I think the worst thing I do online is subscribe to Giganews.
A manufacturer such as Samsung won't allow one customer to take more than around 15% of production.
Okay, assuming this number is informed and not BS, the calculation still becomes: is more market share in the tablet market worth more than 15% of our processor/ram/screen/etc sales? I suspect no.
I don't see how the price of components is the reason they aren't winning in the tablet market.
Because the guys in the flash memory/cpu business unit aren't going to tell their huge customer to pound sand just because the guys in the new tablet division want a competitive advantage. If Samsung wanted to throw it all down to win the tablet price wars, they probably could until Apple found other suppliers. But their investors would have their management's heads on pikes.
Well, they aren't quite MS yet - maybe someday. Right now, though, you can still buy an Android or Blackberry and they are reasonable options - if Apple went away, the smart phone market would not look all that different really, other than one less choice. In the PC world, they control a bit part and are just another hardware vendor. In the music player world, they are more of an evil empire - but there's very little you can't buy on Amazon or a number of other services. And while I think they still have a large chunk of market share in the music player business, there are plenty of competitors there also.
Anyway, they may have evil designs but they don't have the power:)
Let us take a death threat as an example. If there were no legal recourse for me if me or my family were threatened, I may just take matters into my own hands and protect them myself. The entire point of the legal system is to provide a non-violent means to resolve disputes... not allowing me to legally pursue someone making death threats against me virtually guarantees vigilantism.
Perhaps it should be a civil matter. But even then, an anonymous threatening person's identity would be fair game in a civil court case.
I intended to show that morality has no absolute, but is rather a function of the values that are present within your society. It was perfectly moral to practice infanticide in several cultures as a necessary mode of population control, for instance. Do we condemn the entire culture, or instead realize that morality is subjective?
That said, I admit that I still have a pretty strong sense of what (I think) is right and wrong, and I believe in using law to try to enforce that - though I would prefer that the law be as inclusive as is possible given the diversity of our population.
Bullfighting is well established and widely accepted also. Does that make it okay?
In Spain, yes. In India, no.
It's suppression.
Suppression can be good. Bad suppression: mowing down peaceful protesters in a public square. Good suppression: putting a serial killer in prison.
An assertion of arbitrary authority.
Depends how far you stretch the term "arbitrary". Our government is, in theory, "of the people". We elect them, and our elected officials appoint the judiciary - except where the judiciary is directly elected. It may not be the best system, but I'd hardly call it "arbitrary".
The commission of a crime has nothing to do with speech.
A death threat is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech. To paraphrase Holmes, falsely yelling "fire" in a theater is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech.
They weren't the only ones being greedy - this crash (and preceding bubble) was caused by many factors - not the least of which were greedy politicians who found a way to guarantee loans without putting them on the books (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), greedy individual investors who were taking out absurd loans to snatch up real estate "investment" properties, greedy homeowners using the equity in their house like an ATM machine, greedy borrowers biting off more than they can chew, and of course greedy mortgage brokers preying upon the stupid, greedy, or ignorant.
Again, we need banking reform. But let's not single out "Wall Street" and pretend that will fix the problem. And I'm not sure that "more regulation" is what is needed - but definitely different regulation. After all, some of the problems I listed arose as the result of regulation and other government rules and taxes.
But then when they lose all their money, and ask me, through the federal government to bail them out, that's when I really get steamed.
Except that most of the TARP money has been recovered, and "we" are probably going to make a decent profit on it. Most of the cost of the bailout is the feds repaying bad loans that they underwrote indirectly, since no private bank would touch them without federal backing.
Not that I am opposed to reform in the banking industry. We could set all trades to execute at pre-determined intervals, for instance, like they do in Japan. This has its own disadvantages, though. There is no perfect system, so lets not demonize people who are just operating within the imperfect system.
But is a cardboard box safe for other reasons? Like FIRE?
I imagine some fire retardant would take care of this. After all, plastic is a petroleum product that is fairly combustible without fire retardant, and there have been no shortage of plastic computer cases through the years.
RF noise could be a problem, but I imagine that a small amount of aluminum foil would take care of that. It won't be any worse than running a PC with the side cover off, or using one of the plastic see-through cases.
Yes, of course... but he chose that moment to stand, and the setting was very different than a public square.
And in this case "disruptive" would have to be defined as standing silently (admittedly this is according to McGovern himself, though it is largely corroborated by the video as the mic had no problem picking up the noise once he started struggling with the police).
He said he stood up and faced the other way. Granted, he wasn't shouting (yet)... but it is still disruptive. I don't know if the cops asked him to leave before they dragged him out or not. They certainly should have. In any event, once he was being dragged his "silent" approach went out the window, as he was clearly resisting physically and yelling.
You find it suspicious that no one else at the event has publicly corroborated McGovern's story -- but it is also notable that no one else has contradicted it (including the camera).
I agree that is odd, and I don't really know what to say other than perhaps it didn't seem like a big deal to the people in the room.
when a public official speaks at a private university about the importance of protecting the freedom of expression, the police can and will repress peaceful protesters!
There's peaceful protest and then there's "being a dick". Private property is private property, no matter what is being said. I could be persuaded that we need to have some kind of a relaxation of private property rights in political situations... but you need to draw a line. For instance - is it criminal trespass or "peaceful protest" when someone sneaks onto the set of Larry King while he interviews Clinton? So why is GWU different? Maybe something like an exemption when you receive public funding? I don't know.
If you meant moral rights, I disagree (based on the facts as best as I can discern them) that the police had any right to remove McGovern the way they did.
Morally, the police are fine if they first asked him verbally. A trespasser can be removed by force unless your moral code is very, very strict regarding violence. Maybe the Quakers wouldn't remove someone, for instance. And that's fine... I guess I'm suggesting that morality is relative, and that the police weren't acting immorally by the prevailing standards in the US.
Dan Ellsberg is on the list in the link you posted; does that give you serious doubts about the validity of the Pentagon Papers?
It might if the Pentagon Papers weren't released in the 70s and authenticated:)
I'll tell you what I see in that video - I see a man actively resisting some cops and shouting things. His account of what happened before and after the video may or may not be true, but I have no way of knowing. Certainly they are not using disproportionate force in the video - you wish that they weren't wrestling with him, but then again he is wrestling too. The cops have every right to remove someone disruptive from a private event like that.
If events did not transpire as described, you could find at least one report saying so.
That's quite the logical jump.
Why hasn't a single media outlet, alternative or otherwise, talked to anyone else who was in the room with the man. It was a room full of people at a University! I'm not going to make any condemnations of Hillary Clinton based on a single story from a man with CIA training, an activist agenda, and a history of similar publicity stunts.
I almost automatically read it as "a principled person who I disagree with."
He's a 911 "truther". He may have been a good CIA analyst, but he's either playing up the nutjobs for money or he is one himself.
At the very least, you should be skeptical when literally the only account you can find of an event in a room full of people comes from one man. I won't come right out and call him a liar, but nor will I condemn Clinton without hearing more... and believe me, I'm no fan of Clinton.
That gives him at least a *little* base credibility
Which he pisses away by being a "truther" and doing a tour of all the paranoid sites on the web.
Besides, aren't the CIA known for some of the BAD things they do? Don't you think that a CIA guy might know how to work the media? Especially the crazy media, since I can't find any info on a reputable news site except Al Jazeera. And even they just have a blurb and not anything substantial.
At the very least, you'd want an independent report from some witnesses. All that link shows is the story as told by one guy with a history of these kind of stunts.
I think you need to vet your news more carefully. That is a very one-sided account you presented us with, and the guy "assaulted" is a total nut-job, so the one-side is immediately suspect.
Yeah, kinda... it will warn you constantly and force you to make a decision on every start up. I'd kind of like something a little less obtrusive - maybe a little icon with an exclamation point or something.
It may seem weird, but some people want to be musicians. Others want to be writers. Very few can make a living at it. Musicians have even more problems than writers with making a living. And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about performers or composers.
I'm not trying to sound cold and callous, but that isn't really the concern of copyright law. Copyright law is meant to better society by encouraging the production of arts. My contention is that we are positively swimming in good music - so much that I can turn on Pandora and discover new stuff every day. This is unprecedented in human history, and I so I don't find it very persuasive when people say that copyright doesn't go far enough in some respect or another.
The money just never makes its way back to the artists.
And yet they keep pumping out music? I'm sorry, but claiming that artists are under-compensated rings hollow... there is already so much music available that one cannot sift through it all. The purpose of copyright is to encourage production of artistic works, and that goal has been exceeded in both the UK and the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Let us know why you think this is a bad idea.
I think it's a great idea. Intel keeps putting out chipsets with video on-board, and this has to hurt nVidia's core business. If they make inroads into other areas where Intel is now dominant, and can do it without going broke, then that puts them in a nicer position.
The latest GPUs already use more power than the hungriest Intel or AMD x86 ever did.
And when used for the types tasks designed, pump out 10x the performance for maybe twice or three times the power.
And I don't put anything out there that I wouldn't be ashamed of my mom seeing.
Friend your mom like I did and your problem is solved! :)
I do use Facebook, but mostly as a big contact list. It's great when we travel near where some infrequently-contacted cousin lives and I can just lift their contact info from Facebook rather than calling around trying to update my long-out-of-date address book. It's also nice to see what someone's kids look like and such without having to sift through my emails looking for that link to Picasa/Kodak/etc.
Anyway, if I were doing such a thing that I needed privacy, I'd probably use someone else's connection - and not the same connection every time. I'd pay for services with pre-paid credit cards bought with cash while wearing a hoodie and sunglasses. One of the services I would first purchase would be an out-of-country VPN, and I'd frequently change accounts. I'd consider having a special PC dedicated just to the activity that needed so much privacy, and while on that PC I'd assume a completely different identity. While doing said activity, make sure the phone in your pocket is off! And don't use EasyPass. If I had the financial means, I'd probably also rotate phones/computers.
That would at least set up some roadblocks, but I don't do any of that - I think the worst thing I do online is subscribe to Giganews.
A manufacturer such as Samsung won't allow one customer to take more than around 15% of production.
Okay, assuming this number is informed and not BS, the calculation still becomes: is more market share in the tablet market worth more than 15% of our processor/ram/screen/etc sales? I suspect no.
Using hardware as a funding mechanism to iOS isn't going to last when the chinese OEMs come with Android dogs.
Maybe they'll just follow their phone/computer model and not even try to compete in low-end?
I don't see how the price of components is the reason they aren't winning in the tablet market.
Because the guys in the flash memory/cpu business unit aren't going to tell their huge customer to pound sand just because the guys in the new tablet division want a competitive advantage. If Samsung wanted to throw it all down to win the tablet price wars, they probably could until Apple found other suppliers. But their investors would have their management's heads on pikes.
No, they already are.
Well, they aren't quite MS yet - maybe someday. Right now, though, you can still buy an Android or Blackberry and they are reasonable options - if Apple went away, the smart phone market would not look all that different really, other than one less choice. In the PC world, they control a bit part and are just another hardware vendor. In the music player world, they are more of an evil empire - but there's very little you can't buy on Amazon or a number of other services. And while I think they still have a large chunk of market share in the music player business, there are plenty of competitors there also.
Anyway, they may have evil designs but they don't have the power :)
I'll consider this an educational opportunity :) Most of what I learned about bull fighting came from Bugs Bunny.
Why does that need to be a crime?
Let us take a death threat as an example. If there were no legal recourse for me if me or my family were threatened, I may just take matters into my own hands and protect them myself. The entire point of the legal system is to provide a non-violent means to resolve disputes... not allowing me to legally pursue someone making death threats against me virtually guarantees vigilantism.
Perhaps it should be a civil matter. But even then, an anonymous threatening person's identity would be fair game in a civil court case.
I'm not sure whether this morality means
I intended to show that morality has no absolute, but is rather a function of the values that are present within your society. It was perfectly moral to practice infanticide in several cultures as a necessary mode of population control, for instance. Do we condemn the entire culture, or instead realize that morality is subjective?
That said, I admit that I still have a pretty strong sense of what (I think) is right and wrong, and I believe in using law to try to enforce that - though I would prefer that the law be as inclusive as is possible given the diversity of our population.
Bullfighting is well established and widely accepted also. Does that make it okay?
In Spain, yes. In India, no.
It's suppression.
Suppression can be good. Bad suppression: mowing down peaceful protesters in a public square. Good suppression: putting a serial killer in prison.
An assertion of arbitrary authority.
Depends how far you stretch the term "arbitrary". Our government is, in theory, "of the people". We elect them, and our elected officials appoint the judiciary - except where the judiciary is directly elected. It may not be the best system, but I'd hardly call it "arbitrary".
The commission of a crime has nothing to do with speech.
A death threat is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech. To paraphrase Holmes, falsely yelling "fire" in a theater is a crime, and it has everything to do with speech.
The banks were greedy scumbags and knew it.
They weren't the only ones being greedy - this crash (and preceding bubble) was caused by many factors - not the least of which were greedy politicians who found a way to guarantee loans without putting them on the books (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), greedy individual investors who were taking out absurd loans to snatch up real estate "investment" properties, greedy homeowners using the equity in their house like an ATM machine, greedy borrowers biting off more than they can chew, and of course greedy mortgage brokers preying upon the stupid, greedy, or ignorant.
Again, we need banking reform. But let's not single out "Wall Street" and pretend that will fix the problem. And I'm not sure that "more regulation" is what is needed - but definitely different regulation. After all, some of the problems I listed arose as the result of regulation and other government rules and taxes.
But then when they lose all their money, and ask me, through the federal government to bail them out, that's when I really get steamed.
Except that most of the TARP money has been recovered, and "we" are probably going to make a decent profit on it. Most of the cost of the bailout is the feds repaying bad loans that they underwrote indirectly, since no private bank would touch them without federal backing.
Not that I am opposed to reform in the banking industry. We could set all trades to execute at pre-determined intervals, for instance, like they do in Japan. This has its own disadvantages, though. There is no perfect system, so lets not demonize people who are just operating within the imperfect system.
yueh, I Olwiys gut my vewuls muxud ip.
Amazing how that still is readable... no wonder ancient Hebrew didn't have vowels.
But is a cardboard box safe for other reasons? Like FIRE?
I imagine some fire retardant would take care of this. After all, plastic is a petroleum product that is fairly combustible without fire retardant, and there have been no shortage of plastic computer cases through the years.
RF noise could be a problem, but I imagine that a small amount of aluminum foil would take care of that. It won't be any worse than running a PC with the side cover off, or using one of the plastic see-through cases.
can you at least appreciate the irony?
Yes, of course... but he chose that moment to stand, and the setting was very different than a public square.
And in this case "disruptive" would have to be defined as standing silently (admittedly this is according to McGovern himself, though it is largely corroborated by the video as the mic had no problem picking up the noise once he started struggling with the police).
He said he stood up and faced the other way. Granted, he wasn't shouting (yet)... but it is still disruptive. I don't know if the cops asked him to leave before they dragged him out or not. They certainly should have. In any event, once he was being dragged his "silent" approach went out the window, as he was clearly resisting physically and yelling.
You find it suspicious that no one else at the event has publicly corroborated McGovern's story -- but it is also notable that no one else has contradicted it (including the camera).
I agree that is odd, and I don't really know what to say other than perhaps it didn't seem like a big deal to the people in the room.
when a public official speaks at a private university about the importance of protecting the freedom of expression, the police can and will repress peaceful protesters!
There's peaceful protest and then there's "being a dick". Private property is private property, no matter what is being said. I could be persuaded that we need to have some kind of a relaxation of private property rights in political situations... but you need to draw a line. For instance - is it criminal trespass or "peaceful protest" when someone sneaks onto the set of Larry King while he interviews Clinton? So why is GWU different? Maybe something like an exemption when you receive public funding? I don't know.
If you meant moral rights, I disagree (based on the facts as best as I can discern them) that the police had any right to remove McGovern the way they did.
Morally, the police are fine if they first asked him verbally. A trespasser can be removed by force unless your moral code is very, very strict regarding violence. Maybe the Quakers wouldn't remove someone, for instance. And that's fine... I guess I'm suggesting that morality is relative, and that the police weren't acting immorally by the prevailing standards in the US.
Dan Ellsberg is on the list in the link you posted; does that give you serious doubts about the validity of the Pentagon Papers?
It might if the Pentagon Papers weren't released in the 70s and authenticated :)
I'll tell you what I see in that video - I see a man actively resisting some cops and shouting things. His account of what happened before and after the video may or may not be true, but I have no way of knowing. Certainly they are not using disproportionate force in the video - you wish that they weren't wrestling with him, but then again he is wrestling too. The cops have every right to remove someone disruptive from a private event like that.
If events did not transpire as described, you could find at least one report saying so.
That's quite the logical jump.
Why hasn't a single media outlet, alternative or otherwise, talked to anyone else who was in the room with the man. It was a room full of people at a University! I'm not going to make any condemnations of Hillary Clinton based on a single story from a man with CIA training, an activist agenda, and a history of similar publicity stunts.
I almost automatically read it as "a principled person who I disagree with."
He's a 911 "truther". He may have been a good CIA analyst, but he's either playing up the nutjobs for money or he is one himself.
At the very least, you should be skeptical when literally the only account you can find of an event in a room full of people comes from one man. I won't come right out and call him a liar, but nor will I condemn Clinton without hearing more... and believe me, I'm no fan of Clinton.
That gives him at least a *little* base credibility
Which he pisses away by being a "truther" and doing a tour of all the paranoid sites on the web.
Besides, aren't the CIA known for some of the BAD things they do? Don't you think that a CIA guy might know how to work the media? Especially the crazy media, since I can't find any info on a reputable news site except Al Jazeera. And even they just have a blurb and not anything substantial.
At the very least, you'd want an independent report from some witnesses. All that link shows is the story as told by one guy with a history of these kind of stunts.
I think you need to vet your news more carefully. That is a very one-sided account you presented us with, and the guy "assaulted" is a total nut-job, so the one-side is immediately suspect.
That option already exists in the Firefox menu.
Yeah, kinda... it will warn you constantly and force you to make a decision on every start up. I'd kind of like something a little less obtrusive - maybe a little icon with an exclamation point or something.
I guess I'll have to write a plugin that disables auto-update until all installed plugins are updated to support the newest version of Firefox.
It may seem weird, but some people want to be musicians. Others want to be writers. Very few can make a living at it. Musicians have even more problems than writers with making a living. And it doesn't matter whether we're talking about performers or composers.
I'm not trying to sound cold and callous, but that isn't really the concern of copyright law. Copyright law is meant to better society by encouraging the production of arts. My contention is that we are positively swimming in good music - so much that I can turn on Pandora and discover new stuff every day. This is unprecedented in human history, and I so I don't find it very persuasive when people say that copyright doesn't go far enough in some respect or another.
The money just never makes its way back to the artists.
And yet they keep pumping out music? I'm sorry, but claiming that artists are under-compensated rings hollow... there is already so much music available that one cannot sift through it all. The purpose of copyright is to encourage production of artistic works, and that goal has been exceeded in both the UK and the US.